The California Public Utilities Commission\u2019s proposed feed-in tariff rules are too complex, or they\u2019re just right--reported stakeholders during a May 1 commission hearing. The tariff for small distributed projects is \u201can important\u201d procurement mechanism aimed at getting closer to the state\u2019s 33 percent renewable mandate, noted Mark Ferron, CPUC commissioner. \u201cIt\u2019s an incredibly intricate and ingenious approach to a very difficult set of issues,\u201d added Mike Florio, CPUC member The proposed mechanism by administrative law judge Regina DeAngelis, known as a feed-in tariff for projects sized up to 3 MW, includes three price categories. The trio of categories are baseload, peaking, and non-peaking for solar, wind, biogas, or other alternative energy projects. The price is to be set largely by the market and adjusted monthly--up or down--depending on the number of project bids submitted to the investor-owned utilities. An initial floor for the three categories is set at $89.23\/MWh. Prices are to be adjusted upward to reflect the time of delivery. Ferron called the proposal \u201cfiscally sustainable.\u201d Some stakeholders, including the Division of Ratepayer Advocates and Independent Energy Producers, welcomed regulators\u2019 proposal. Steven Kelly, Energy Producers policy director, said the market-based pricing mechanism was the only option acceptable to the public. Others, including some clean air, biogas, and solar proponents, said the pricing parameters were fundamentally flawed and the mechanism overly complex. They also objected to the price excluding environmental compliance costs and not including categories for different technologies. While industries, utilities, and renewables advocates went head-to-head, San Diego Gas & Electric attorney Ted Roberts asked that the feed-in tariff include a \u201ctime out\u201d provision for \u201cunresolved issues.\u201d Those issues and interests include: -Biogas developers who said not paying more for this technology stunts the industry. -The U.S. Forest Service, CalFire and Placer County, which urged the purchase price be increased for remote biomass projects in forests to promote facilities that reduce fire hazards from excess tree debris. -The CPUC proposal, which rejects price adders for environmental compliance, solar projects, or forest biomass facilities calling them \u201coverly broad societal costs\u201d that \u201ccould increase the contract price above the resource\u2019s actual costs and lead to overpayment.\u201d -Investor-owned utilities, which urged the price rely on the commission\u2019s market price benchmark aligned with natural gas prices, known as the \u201cmarket price referent.\u201d -The proposed ruling, which concluded that the renewable market was sufficiently robust and thus the market price referent, based on fossil prices, was not needed or relevant. The proposal is pursuant to state law, SB 32, which directs establishment of set, transparent prices for renewable deals up to 3 MW with investor-owned utilities. While the law set a statewide cap of 250 MW on such deals, the CPUC proposal raises the cap to 750 MW.